Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 11, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
July 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
April 5, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

2015[edit]

Several bins have been introduced this year, some to introduce the NPVIC, some to repeal it:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/2011-2013-elections-legislation-database.aspx

In total 9 states. It would be nice if somebody with more free time than me could update the article (including the figure at the top!) and put in a new table with current bills. KarlFrei (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's very helpful. I found 13 bills: 6 failed (including OK and OR which are still shown as pending in the link), 2 pending in MI and MN to introduce the compact, 3 pending in MA and NJ to repeal it, and 2 pending in NY to make it permanent (did NY adopt it with an expiration date?). I added MI and MN to the article, including the map. Heitordp (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Possible partisan advantage"[edit]

Per wiki guidelines I will assume good faith of page editors. However, I will not extend that to supporters of the NPVIC. It is a partisan movement with partisan objectives that originated in a partisan perspective of an event that had partisan consequences and which offended partisan sensibilities about "majority rule".

That said, I am disappointed with what appear to be efforts to gloss over the partisan nature of this movement, and I suggest that if you honestly do not believe the NPVIC is a partisan action then you should check your own political alignment for a COI. Democrats (or "the left") have never benefited from the electoral college. Even if one can (nonsensically) argue that electoral margins have sometimes come in higher than the popular margins for a Democratic president, the electoral college model has never actually swung an election to a Democrat.

The NPVIC originated in the wake of the 2000 electoral college victory of George W. Bush, a particularly stinging defeat for Democrats. The compact was proposed by a liberal professor at a liberal university, and has been adopted exclusively by liberal stronghold states. This is a partisan proposition.

I am happy to admit -- as the article alludes in its Nate Silver reference -- that opposition to the NPVIC is decidedly partisan. How then is supporting it presumed to be nonpartisan? I submit that the popular basis for supporting the compact, "majority rule", is itself a partisan priority, and even NPVIC supporters on the right do so only because of the left's success at rebranding majority rule as a politically correct surrogate for the rule of law. I do not buy this argument, and I do not buy the popular portrayal of the compact as nonpartisan/bipartisan as objective or unbiased.

The authors of the compact have an agenda. Its supporters have no less of an agenda than those who oppose it. I intend to recharacterize the article's coverage of "partisanship", and I want to discuss those changes here instead of having an edit war about it.

Thoughts? Cpurick (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are partisan motivations, but it is not so clear who benefits. Contrary to what you say, Democrats did benefit from the Electoral College in 1960. Roger (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "flaw" in the electoral college is that occasionally a president is elected who lost the popular vote to the other candidate. That flaw has never worked in the Democrats' favor. Kennedy beat Nixon in both the popular vote and the electoral vote, with the point being that nobody was left feeling that their more popular candidate was cheated on a technicality. You could argue that the electoral college allowed Kennedy to win an electoral majority while having only a plurality of the vote, but nobody thought Nixon lost despite having a higher vote count nationwide. (They mainly thought he lost because Richard Daly had delivered Cook County cemeteries to JFK, which is different.) Cpurick (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As User:Schlafly said, it's far from clear that the NPVIC would consistently favor one party or the other. We've already included numerous quotes from opponents who suggest it would, but to take those quotes at face value would not be supportable by fact. To my mind, the failure (thus far) of deep-red states to pass the NPVIC, against their best interests, is a result of bandwagoning and spitefulness, not carefully considered electoral calculus. Swpbtalk 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As a historical matter, a lot of Nixon supporters did feel that they were cheated in 1960. According to them, Kennedy could win by stealing just 2 states, I think. Whether Kennedy won the popular vote is debatable. See [1]. Also, the electoral college also worked to the benefit of the Democrats in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton failed to win a majority of the popular vote both times, and only got 43% in 1992. Because of the way the E.C. works, Perot could get millions of popular votes, but no electoral votes. Clinton could claim the legitimacy of a majority, because he got a majority of the E.C. votes, and also a majority of the states. If he had been elected by the NPVIC, there would have been a lot of complaints about his legitimacy. Roger (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New section suggestion[edit]

I would like to suggest that the following subsections be grouped into a separate section as they focus specifically on the history and progress of the NPVIC: 4.3-Academic plan; 4.4-Organization and advocacy; 4.5-Adoption; 4.6-Currently active bills; 4.7-Bills in previous sessions. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The "History" section itself ought to focus on the NPVIC; earlier reform attempts are an aside. Thus, I have instead subsumed the subsections on the two previous attempts at amendments into a level-3 subsection "Proposals to abolish the Electoral college by amendment". This maintains the section structure that has long been in place. Swpbtalk 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Graphic error[edit]

The text in the lower-right corner of NPVIC participants.svg reads '06 when it should read '16. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ends of 2016 sessions[edit]

Since the legislatures of AK, AZ, GA, and MN have all already adjourned their regular sessions (https://legiscan.com/schedules/2016), I think I'm going to move those bills to the "Past bills" section. I'm not entirely sure if this is how passing bills works, though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. Blippy1998 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Compatibility with alternative voting systems[edit]

I undid the insertion of this new section: <<Compatibility with alternative voting methods[edit] The NPVIC assumes that all states use the current choose-one plurality voting (COPV) method. This would be problematic if any states were to implement one of the many alternative voting methods (e.g. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Approval Voting (AV) that are often promoted as solutions to the problem of vote splitting. The results of most voting methods, in particular the ranked voting methods like IRV, are not summable with the results of others. It may be acceptable to sum AV with COPV results, but without counting rules defined in the NPVIC verbiage signatory states could have grounds for protest.[48] On the other hand, it would be equally problematic to implement alternative voting methods without either an interstate compact or a Constitutional change to the rules of the Electoral College: alternative voting methods could lead to more than two candidates receiving electors, while the Electoral College assumes a two-party system, with some candidate receiving a majority.>>

The contributor may want to explain this more, but my initial reactions are: 1) NPVIC assumes vote totals are generated from states, but does not assume plurality voting; 2) approval voting generates vote totals, and instant runoff generates 1st choice totals that are easily summable; 3) the final section about the "Electoral college assuming a two-party system" is not true. RRichie (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you have a strong interest in both IRV and NPV, so you must have thought about this, and should have an article yourself somewhere. 1st-choice totals could of course be "easily summable", but that method would have to be defined and recognized by the NPVIC. I cited an external reference. Why don't you cite an external reference about how IRV would fit into NPV? That would be a worthy contribution. Simply deleting this section is not a contribution. I will grant you 3) that the final section about the "Electoral college assuming a two-party system" was oversimplified, but not false. The Electoral College's decision must be by majority, and there is only one round; if electors represent more than two candidates it becomes likely that there will be no majority, transferring the decision to the House of Representatives. Simplulo (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Despite the source provided, there it a lot of synthesis going on in the removed text, which is not appropriate under WP:NOR. If and when issues with other voting methods arise and we can report how they are actually handled, we can discuss them; until then, this is very speculative. As for "Why don't you cite an external reference about how IRV would fit into NPV?", that gets the burden of evidence totally backwards—if you want to introduce new material, you need to provide all the sources necessary to support it; if you don't, there is no obligation to provide sources countering that material in order to remove it, especially as such sources may not exist. —swpbT 13:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Describing the compact vote totals[edit]

There's been some back and forth edits on how to describe the national popular vote. What I've witnessed is that vague phrases like "votes nationwide" or "national popular vote" is that readers may interpret that differently. They might think it's just the states in the compact or might think it includes territories of the United States like Puerto Rico that currently do not have votes in the Electoral College. Saying something to the effect of " the most popular votes overall in all 50 states and DC" is designed to answer those questions.RRichie (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

While I prefer "nationwide", I understand the possible source of confusion. To avoid an edit war, I'll make sure all relevant sections say "the most popular votes overall in the 50 states and DC" instead of "the most popular votes overall in all 50 states and DC" because I think it further removes confusion. Blippy1998 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Commented-out bills w/o a floor vote; why include at all?[edit]

Currently, we comment out bills that died without a floor vote, but why keep them at all? They're never going to be made visible to readers, and they don't provide any useful function for editors. Any good reason not to get rid of them? —swpbT 12:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking six days without dissent on a heavily-watched page as license to proceed. —swpbT 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)